DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least Pg. 5, lines 11-21 of the instant specification.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Claim Objection and/or 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed 10/28/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the filtration/washing and/or leaching is of precipitated hydrated titanium dioxide resulting from the hydrolysis step, not prior to the hydrolysis step as presently claimed. Applicant argues there is nothing in Bernard that would reasonably lead a skilled artisan to modify the process of Bernard to arrive at the claimed invention.
However, Bernard discloses that following the acid digestion of the titanium containing ore, the digested ore is baked, the bake is dissolved with water or dilute acid, the suspension is separated to provide a liquour, where the liquour contains predominantly titanium sulphate, the liquour is hydrolyzed to obtain a precipitate of hydrated titanium dioxide, and the precipitate is then calcined to obtain TiO2 (Claims 1-4). Bernard does not explicitly use the term “leaching” however Bernard teaches dissolving the digested ore in water or dilute acid, which is equivalent to leaching and is discussed accordingly in at least Pg. 4, line 20 and Pg.8, line 2 of the instant specification. Examiner notes claim 1 does not require further heating or stirring limitations of the leaching step, as further described in claims 11-12, and a broad interpretation of the term “leaching” was applied, as described in the previous action dated 10/28/2025. Further, the claims of the instant application use the language “comprising”, broadening the scope of the claims such that there would be an unjust extension of the right to exclude. Accordingly, as Bernard teaches each claimed step in claim 1, Bernard anticipates the method as claimed in claim 1.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9-10 Duyvesteyn, De Matos, Chao, Tao, and Mujicic fail to cure the deficiencies of Bernard.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Duyvesteyn, De Matos, Chao, Tao, and Mujicic are not cited to teach the method of claim1, but rather Bernard is.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9 the secondary reference Smith is cited solely to disclose the magnetic separation step, and that Smith does not teach treating the ore with sulfuric acid. Applicant argues Smith lacks any teach of leaching digested ore with water, nor that the ore is separated. Applicant argues a skilled artisan would have no reason to modify Bernard in view of Smith.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Smith is not relied on to teach the leaching and digesting steps, but rather Bernard is.
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Smith teaches a process for the beneficiation of titaniferous ore that comprises a magnetic separation that can be performed at approximately 500 Gauss to 20,000 Gauss (Abstract; [0014]). Advantageously, the magnetic separation step is useful for removing solid phase materials ([0014]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Bernard teaches a process for the beneficiation of titanium bearing material, wherein the titanium bearing material comprises an anatase ore, an anatase containing ore, an upgraded ore having a higher proportion of anatase than before upgrading, an anatase concentrate, or an anatase containing concentrate (Pg. 4, line 32-Pg. 5, line 13). Bernard teaches the anatase ore is digested with 94-98% sulfuric acid to obtain a mix (Pg. 5, lines 1-3). Bernard teaches the mix obtained after digestion is mixed with water or dilute acid (equivalent to leaching) prior to separating out a liquor containing predominately titanium sulphate species (Pg. 5, line 25-26). Bernard teaches the titanium sulphate liquor is hydrolyzed to obtain a precipitate of hydrate titanium dioxide which is then subjected to calcination which provides either anatase or rutile TiO2 according to the conditions used in the process (Pg. 12, lines 8-20; Pg. 23, Claim 8).
Regarding claim 2, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1 and Bernard further teaches that the digestion of the anatase titanium dioxide ore provides a cake that is added water which provides a solution of titanyl sulfate (TiOSO4) (Pg. 2, line 25-30; Pg. 9, line 1-7; Pg. 1, line 19; Pg. 15-21, Examples 1-7).
Regarding claim 4, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1 and 2 Bernard further teaches the digestion is performed at a general range from 220 to 275 °C (Pg. 10, lines 27-33) while teaching an example that performs digestion at 220 °C (Pg. 17, lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 13, Bernard teaches the leached ore is separated to obtain a liquor containing predominately titanium sulphate species (Pg. 5, line 25-26). As stated above in the 112(b) section, a filtrate containing titanium is considered “rich” with titanium.
Regarding claim 16, Bernard teaches the processing of titanium ores with sulfuric acid provides TiOSO4 (i.e. titanyl sulfate) solution which is then hydrolyzed with water to provide TiO(OH)2 precipitate (Pg. 1, Lines 12-29).
Regarding claim 17, Bernard teaches the TiO(OH)2 generated during hydrolysis is obtained as a precipitate of hydrated titanium dioxide (TiO2.nH2O) and is washed with water prior to calcining (Pg. 9, lines 17-18; Pg. 12, lines 8-20).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023).
Regarding claim 21, Bernard teaches a process for the beneficiation of titanium bearing material, wherein the titanium bearing material comprises an anatase ore, an anatase containing ore, an upgraded ore having a higher proportion of anatase than before upgrading, an anatase concentrate, or an anatase containing concentrate (Pg. 4, line 32-Pg. 5, line 13). Bernard teaches the anatase ore is digested with 94-98% sulfuric acid to obtain a mix (Pg. 5, lines 1-3). Bernard teaches the mix obtained after digestion is mixed with water or dilute acid prior to separating out a liquor containing predominately titanium sulphate species (Pg. 5, line 25-26). Bernard teaches the titanium sulphate liquor is hydrolyzed to obtain a precipitate of hydrate titanium dioxide which is then subjected to calcination which provides either anatase or rutile TiO2 according to the conditions used in the process (Pg. 12, lines 8-20; Pg. 23, Claim 8). Bernard teaches TiO2 is obtained from the process (Pg. 23, Claim 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art
relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Bernard anticipates the method of claims 1 and 2 and Bernard further teaches the anatase ore was digested with concentrated sulfuric acid with a concentration of 94 to 98% (Pg. 9, lines 22-23; Pg. 13, lines 26-29). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Bernard (concentrated sulfuric acid with a concentration of 94 to 98%) overlaps with the claimed range (concentration of at least 98%). Therefore, the range in Bernard renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1 and further teaches the precipitated hydrated titanium dioxide may be treated prior to calcination, for example by being filtered and washed and/or being leached under reducing conditions to eliminate any residual ferric iron (Pg. 12, lines 12-16). Bernard teaching the precipitate may be treated with reducing conditions makes performing a reduction step optional and a skilled artisan could readily choose not to perform a reduction step and still expect success in performing the operation of Bernard. To wit, Bernard further teaches that any iron present prior to the hydrolysis may be removed by crystallization if necessary and that iron is preferably not present. Importantly, performing crystallization to remove ferric iron is not equivalent to a reduction step, as a reduction step in the context of titanium ore processing is understood in the art as performing a high temperature heating step in a kiln to converted iron oxide to metallic iron before digestion with sulfuric acid, such as in the Becher process. This interpretation is consistent with the instant specification in at least Pg. 3, lines 11-23.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023) in view of Duyvesteyn et al. (US6375923B1).
Regarding claim 5, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires “wherein the ore particles have an ore grain size of 99% less than 62 µm,” to which Bernard is silent.
Duyvesteyn teaches a process for obtaining titanium dioxide from titaniferous ore where the ore has a particle size of less than 300 µm (Abstract; col. 5, lines 56-63). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Duyvesteyn (less than 300 µm) overlaps with the claimed range (ore grain size of 99% less than 62 µm). Therefore, the range in Duyvesteyn renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, ore particles in this size range display acceptable dissolution kinetics, where about 90% or greater of the titanium and iron values are dissolved (col. 5, lines 56-63).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide particles with a size of less than 300 µm in the method of Bernard in order to obtain acceptable dissolution kinetics such that 90% or greater of the titanium and iron valuables are dissolved, as taught by Duyvesteyn.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023) in view of De Matos et al. (US6346223; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023 as US20010051120).
Regarding claim 6, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires “classifying raw anatase ore particles by grain size into a first portion and a second portion; discarding the first portion; and subjecting the second portion to a first grinding step until about 60% of the second portion has an ore grain size of less than 210 µm,” to which Bernard is silent.
De Matos teaches a process for the production of titanium concentrate from anatase ores that includes performing multiple classification steps (Abstract; col. 2, lines 41-67). De Matos teaches that after performing a first ore classification, a fraction with particle size above 300 µm is obtained before subsequently performing a second classification where the classified ore (i.e. ore with particle size above 300 µm) is fed to a 200 mesh (74 µm) screen, the overflow of the classifier is discarded, and the obtained particles are then subjected to further operations (Abstract; col. 2, lines 41-67). De Matos teaching that the overflow particles from the 200 mesh (74 µm) screening are discarded requires that about 100% of the particles have a particles size of 74 µm or less because particles that are larger than the screen would not be expected to pass through. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by De Matos (about 100% of the second ground portion has a size of 74 µm or less) overlaps with the claimed range (about 60% of the second portion has an ore grain size of less than 210 µm). Therefore, the range in De Matos renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the classification and separation process allows for a high degree of impurity removal to occur thus providing a concomitantly large recovery of titanium and iron contained in the ore (col. 2, lines 11-29).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a first classification, discard a second portion, then further classify the first portion to a particle size where about 100% of the particles are 74 µm or greater in the method of Bernard in order to allow for a high degree of impurities to be removed from the ore and accordingly provide a large recovery of titanium and iron contained in the ore, as taught by De Matos.
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023) in view of De Matos et al. (US6346223; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023 as US20010051120) and Chao et al. (WO1993022465A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023).
Regarding claim 7, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1 and Bernard in view of De Matos teach the method of claim 6. Bernard further teaches after crushing a wet magnetic separation step can be used (Pg. 11, lines 16-27).
The claim further requires “subjecting the second portion to a magnetic separation step to remove iron oxides from the second portion such that a reduction step is not required,” to which Bernard and DeMatos are silent.
Chao teaches a process for the beneficiation of anatase titanium dioxide ore that comprises a particle size adjustment stage to obtain ore particles with a size of less than about one-fourth of an inch prior to performing magnetic separation (Pg. 4, lines 15-25; Pg. 9, lines 9-32; Pg. 10, lines 20-21). Chao further teaches the magnetic separation involves a low, medium, and high intensity field strength and that iron is an impurity removed (Pg. 10, lines 6-14; Pg. 8, lines 15-37).
Regarding the reduction step, Chao teaches reductive roasting may be performed but that reductive roasting is not suitable if phosphorous, aluminum, thorium, or uranium impurities are present in appreciable amount as reductive roasting makes these impurities resistant to separation (Pg. 11, lines 24-36). Accordingly, a skilled artisan could readily choose not to perform reductive roasting and would further be motivated not to perform a reduction step based on the type of impurities in the titanium-containing ore to be treated.
Advantageously, performing a magnetic separation without requiring a reduction step provides a process that is simple, takes considerably less energy requirements, and can be performed in few steps (Pg. 5, lines 4-37)
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform magnetic separation to remove iron impurities without requiring a reduction step in the method of Bernard in order to perform a simple process that takes considerably less energy requirements and can be performed in few steps, as taught by Chao.
Regarding claim 8, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1, Bernard in view of De Matos teach the method of claim 6, and Bernard in view of De Matos and further in view of Chao teach the method of claim 7.
The claim further requires “wherein the magnetic separation step comprises, in order: subjecting the second portion to a first magnetic field; subjecting the second portion to a second magnetic field greater than the first magnetic field; and subjecting the second portion to a third magnetic field greater than the second magnetic field,” to which Bernard and DeMatos are silent.
Chao teaches a process for the beneficiation of anatase titanium dioxide ore that comprises a particle size adjustment stage to obtain ore particles with a size of less than about one-fourth of an inch prior to performing magnetic separation (Pg. 4, lines 15-25; Pg. 9, lines 9-32; Pg. 10, lines 20-21). Chao further teaches the magnetic separation involves a low, medium, and high intensity field strength (Pg. 10, lines 6-14; Pg. 8, lines 15-37).
Advantageously, performing a magnetic separation with additional medium and high intensity gradients allows for a reactive roasting step to be avoided and a desired level of TiO2 and FeOx to be obtained prior to leaching (Pg. 11, line 27-Pg. 12, line 5)
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform magnetic separation with a low, medium, and high intensity magnetic field in the method of Bernard in order to avoid a reactive roasting step and still obtain a desirable level of TiO2 and FeOx for subsequent leaching steps, as taught by Chao.
Regarding claim 10, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1, Bernard in view of De Matos teach the method of claim 6, and Bernard in view of De Matos and further in view of Chao teach the method of claim 7.
The claim further requires “after the magnetic separation step, the second portion is subjected to a second grinding step until about 99% or more of the second portion has an ore grain size of less than 62 µm,” to which Bernard and Chao are silent.
De Matos teaches a process for the production of titanium concentrate from anatase ores that includes performing multiple classification steps (Abstract; col. 2, lines 41-67). De Matos teaches that after performing a first ore classification, a fraction with particle size above 300 µm is obtained before subsequently performing a second classification where the classified ore (i.e. ore with particle size above 300 µm) is fed to a 200 mesh (74 µm) screen, the overflow of the classifier is discarded, and the obtained particles are then subjected to further operations (Abstract; col. 2, lines 41-67). De Matos teaching that the overflow particles from the 200 mesh (74 µm) screening are discarded requires that about 100% of the particles have a particles size of 74 µm or less because particles that are larger than the screen would not be expected to pass through. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by De Matos (about 100% of the second ground portion has a size of 74 µm or less) overlaps with the claimed range (about 99% of the second portion has grain size of less than 62 µm). Therefore, the range in De Matos renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the classification and separation process allows for a high degree of impurity removal to occur thus providing a concomitantly large recovery of titanium and iron contained in the ore (col. 2, lines 11-29).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a first classification, discard a second portion, then further classify the first portion to a particle size where about 100% of the particles are 74 µm or greater in the method of Bernard in order to allow for a high degree of impurities to be removed from the ore and accordingly provide a large recovery of titanium and iron contained in the ore, as taught by De Matos.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023) in view of De Matos et al. (US6346223; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023 as US20010051120) and Chao et al. (WO1993022465A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023) and further in view of Smith et al. (US20070092416A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023).
Regarding claim 9, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1, Bernard in view of De Matos teach the method of claim 6, and Bernard in view of De Matos and further in view of Chao teach the method of claims 7 and 8.
The claim further requires the first magnetic field range is from about 1,000 Gauss to about 2,000 Gauss, the second magnetic field range is from about 6,000 Gauss to about 8,000 Gauss, and the third magnetic field range is from about 11,000 Gauss to about 15,000 Gauss. As stated above in the claim 8 rejection, Chao teaches performing a low, medium, and high intensity magnetic separation. However, Bernard, De Matos, and Chao do not explicitly teach the magnetic field strength of the three magnetic separation steps.
Smith teaches a process for the beneficiation of titaniferous ore that comprises a magnetic separation that can be performed at approximately 500 Gauss to 20,000 Gauss (Abstract; [0014]). Advantageously, the magnetic separation step is useful for removing solid phase materials ([0014]).
It is noted Smith does not teach a first, second, and third magnetic separation explicitly within the ranges required by the claim, however a skilled artisan could readily adjust the magnetic field strength of separations within the range disclosed by Smith of about 500 to about 20,000 Gauss, which overlaps the ranges required by the claim. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in performing such an operation as the range disclosed by Smith fully encompasses the claimed magnetic field range and advantageously separates solid phase materials ([0014]). See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a low, medium, and high intensity magnetic separation spanning the magnetic field range of 500 to 20,000 Gauss in the method of Bernard in order to separate solid phase material impurities, as taught by Smith
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023) in view of Tao et al. (CA2954871A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the leaching step is carried out at a solid: liquid ratio of 1:4,” to which Bernard is silent.
Tao teaches a process for separating titanium-containing ore that includes a roasting step of the ore followed by a leaching step performed on the residue, where the leaching step includes a liquid-solid ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 (i.e. solid: liquid ratio of 1:5 to 1:1) (Abstract; Pg. 3, par. 5-7; Pg. 12, Claim 7). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Tao (solid:liquid ratio 1:1 to 1:5) overlaps with the claimed ranges (solid:liquid ratio 1:4). Therefore, the range in Tao renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the method of Tao comprising the disclosed leaching step provides a significant advantage of shortening the recovery process, results in little environmental pollution, and obtains a high comprehensive recovery rate of metal, including titanium (Pg. 4, par. 2-3).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a leaching step with a solid:liquid ratio ranging between 1:1 and 1:5 in the method of Bernard in order to shorten the recovery process, limit environmental pollution, and obtain a high comprehensive recovery rate of target metals, as taught by Tao.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023) in view of Tao et al. (CA2954871A1) and Mujicic et al. (US20160298209A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires “wherein the leaching step is carried out at a temperature in a range between 50°C and 70°C, with mechanical agitation, for a period between about 2 and about 4 hours,” to which Bernard is silent.
Tao teaches a process for separation titanium-containing ore that includes a roasting step of the ore followed by a leaching step performed on the residue, where the leaching step includes a liquid-solid ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 (i.e. solid: liquid ratio of 1:5 to 1:1) (Abstract; Pg. 3, par. 5-7; Pg. 12, Claim 7). Tao further teaches the leaching step is carried out at a temperature of 30-100 °C for 0.5 to 4 hours (Pg. 12, Claim 7). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Tao (temperature of 30-100 °C; time 0.5 to 4 hours) overlap with the claimed ranges (temperature 50 to 70 °C; between about 2 and about 4 hours). Therefore, the ranges in Tao render obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, the method of Tao comprising the disclosed leaching step provides a significant advantage of shortening the recovery process, results in little environmental pollution, and obtains a high comprehensive recovery rate of metal, including titanium (Pg. 4, par. 2-3).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a leaching step at a temperature of between 30-100 °C for 0.5 to 4 hours in the method of Bernard in order to shorten the recovery process, limit environmental pollution, and obtain a high comprehensive recovery rate of target metals, as taught by Tao.
The claim further requires the leaching is performed with “mechanical agitation,” to which Bernard and Tao are silent.
Mujicic teaches a process for leaching ores that includes a leaching step that is aided with mechanical agitation (Abstract; [0076]).
Advantageously, mechanical agitation allows for a blended slurry or crushed metal-bearing material to be obtained ([0076]; [0083]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a leaching step with mechanical agitation in the method of Bernard in order to provide a blended slurry of crushed metal-bearing material, as taught by Mujicic.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023) in view of Bekker et al. (US20040136899A1).
Regarding claim 14, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires “the hydrolysis step is carried out in a filtrate: water ratio of 1:5” to which Bernard is silent.
Bekker teaches a method of recovering titanium dioxide from titanium oxide raw material that comprises a leaching and a hydrolysis step (Abstract; [0009]; [0021]). Bekker teaches that following the leaching operation of a porous cake material with a liquid to solid ratio of 1:1, a very dense solution is obtained that requires an appropriate amount of water to be added in order for the hydrolysis to take place ([0051]-[0052]). While Bekker does not explicitly describe the filtrate to water ratio, Bekker teaching that water is required to be added to the dense oil for hydrolysis to take place would provide a skilled artisan with motivation to optimize the amount of water in the hydrolysis as well as provide a reasonable expectation of success when optimizing the filtrate to water ratio during the hydrolysis for the stated reason of allowing the hydrolysis to take place. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Advantageously, providing a sufficient filtrate to water ratio allows for the hydrolysis of titanyl sulfate to occur which produces the titanium dioxide product ([0052]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a sufficient filtrate to water ratio in the method of Bernard in order to allow for the hydrolysis of the titanyl sulfate to occur and produce the titanium dioxide product, as taught by Bekker.
Regarding claim 15, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1.
The claim further requires limitations regarding the hydrolysis step to which Bernard is silent.
Bekker teaches a method of recovering titanium dioxide from titanium oxide raw material that comprises a leaching, hydrolysis, and calcining step (Abstract; [0004]-[0012]; [0021]). Bekker teaches the filtrate obtained from leaching and a water solution are heated to 60 °C prior to mixing the two solutions and raising the temperature to about 95 °C (+- 95 °) for about plus or minus 1 hour for hydrolysis to be completed ([0037]; [0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Bekker (filtrate and water temperature at 60 °C; heating at about 95 °C) overlap with the claimed ranges (filtrate and water at about 50 to about 75 °C; heating from about 80 to about 105 °C). Therefore, the ranges in Bekker render obvious the claimed ranges.
It is noted Bekker does not explicitly disclose the claimed range from about 2 hours and about 5 hours for hydrolysis. However, Bekker teaching the hydrolysis is conducted for about plus or minus 1 hours such that hydrolysis is complete would enable a skilled artisan to adjust the hydrolysis duration such that the hydrolysis of titanyl sulfate to titanium oxide hydrate was complete and increasing reaction duration is an operation easily performed by a skilled artisan. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Advantageously, performing the hydrolysis step under the conditions taught by Bekker ensures hydrolysis of the extract titanyl sulfate can be performed to completion and ultimately provide titanium oxide ([0001]; [0037]-[0042]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a hydrolysis step according to the disclosure of Bekker in the method of Bernard in order to ensure complete hydrolysis of the titanyl sulfate filtrate and ultimately provide titanium oxide, as taught by Bekker.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (WO 2016112432 A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023) in view of Smith et al. (US20070092416A1; cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023).
Regarding claim 18, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1, where Bernard teaches calcination is performed in the region of 1000 °C (Pg. 12, lines 8-20). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Bernard (about 1,000 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (about 900 to about 1100 °C). Therefore, the range in Bernard renders obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires the calcination is performed “for a period of time in a range of from about 1 hour to about 4 hours,” to which Bernard is silent.
Smith teaches a process for the beneficiation of titaniferous ore with sulfuric acid the comprises a calcination step, where calcination is performed at a temperature preferably between 900 °C and 1100 °C for at least 0.5 hours (Abstract; [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Smith (at least 0.5 hours) overlaps with the claimed range (from about 1 hour to about 4 hours). Therefore, the range in Smith renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, performing calcination at this temperature and for this duration the subsequent leaching step can be improved to gain a more uniform crystalline structure of the product due to improved removal of impurities ([0028]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a calcination at a temperature preferably between 900 °C and 1100 °C for at least 0.5 hours in the method of Bernard in order to improve the impurity removal in subsequent steps in order to gain a product with more uniform crystalline structure, as taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 19, Bernard anticipates the method of claim 1 and Bernard in view of Smith teaches the method of claim 18.
Bernard further teaches when the hydrated titanium oxide is calcined, the strongly adsorbed water is driven off to obtain anatase or rutile (i.e. TiO2) pigments according to the conditions applied (Pg. 1, lines 22-29; Pg. 12, line 12-20; Pg. 22, Claim 3).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights